ProDPinNC

This Weblog or "Blog" contains articles, events and opinions that support capital punishment in North Carolina and elsewhere. Author(s) of the contents are exercising their rights to free speech which unfortunately is often stifled or ignored by the media.
Contrary to what you might read or hear in the news, North Carolinians should be proud that an occassional and deserved execution is allowed to proceed.
- Wayne Uber

There was (and is) zero indication that McGuire was conscious (1) or that his execution was, otherwise, botched (1),

"Amy Borror, a spokeswoman for the public defender's office, said all accounts from execution eyewitnesses - which did not include Lowe - indicate McGuire was unconscious at the time he struggled to breathe." (1)

The very well known overdosing effects include respiratory distress (2), which is expected.

Regarding the drugs used in McGuire's execution: “By virtue of what (the drugs) do, they cause unconsciousness, and they inhibit pain,” said Dr. Howard Nearman, professor of anesthesiology at Case Western Reserve University (1).

2) Death Penalty: Bad for Families. The capital murder of Shelby Farah.

The death penalty was a huge benefit for Shelby Farah's family.

Shelby Farah was murdered in 2013. She was a cashier, who gave all the money to a robber, did everything he said and, then, he shot her 3 times, murdering her. He was a repeat offender, as about 70% of murderers are.

Shelby was a wonderful, generous 20 year old, as so, often, described by her mother, Darlene Farah.

Darlene opposed the death penalty because of the long trial and appeals time, which are not required, as detailed (3).

How did Darlene avoid the long trial and appeals time? The death penalty.

The case was resolved with a plea to life without parole (LWOP). No trial, no appeals.

There is, only, one way to get a plea to LWOP. You have to have the death penalty and it has to be a credible option in the case.

It was.

With no death penalty option, Darlene would have faced a trial with LWOP being the maximum sanction, with the potential of lifetime appeals with LWOP, something that Darlene did not acknowledge (4), and with the possibility of a lesser sanction given, if applicable, in the case.

If LWOP is the jurisdictions maximum sentence, the best plea deal would have been life with parole eligibility, often not an option, because of the horrors of the crime, thereby requiring a LWOP trial and appeals, causing much more time and trauma than a plea to LWOP, only possible with a death penalty option.

A prior district attorney had insisted upon seeking the death penalty in this case, but a newly elected DA agreed to the plea to LWOP, only possible with a credible death penalty option.

Darlene, also, believes that Shelby would have opposed the death penalty in her case, stating: " . . . more killing in no way honors my daughter’s memory or provides solace to my family." (4)

Choosing the most just sanction is the only way that a jury or judge can honor the victims, in court. In a capital, jury case, the jury will have the option between death and LWOP, choosing the most appropriate sanction, based within justice. Darlene did not detail how LWOP would honor Shelby, any more or less, (4) had a jury decided on that sanction, over the death penalty.

The important, additional, solace one gets from the death penalty/execution is that living murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape and after improper release and executed murderers do not, a very big deal for those who have, already, lost a loved one to murder (5, 6).

Additionally, the enhanced deterrent effect of the death penalty, over LWOP, has never been negated and, never, can be (7).

We all know that life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life, especially when you are a healthy 28 year old, the average age of capital murderers.

What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more, deters more.

Even non deterred murderers, confirm that - a bit late for them and their murdered victims - nearly 100% of all capital murderers do all they can, in pre trial, trial, in appeals and commutation proceedings to avoid the death penalty and get a life sentence. You'll notice, there is never a plea bargain to a death sentence.

Basic.

Darlene is unaware that the reason there is "geographical disparity" in death penalty application is because about 2.7% of counties have the majority of violent crimes. Again, basic for the death penalty and all other violent crimes - not a disparity, but proper application.

My condolences for the loved ones of Shelby.

3) The wrongful conviction of Damon Thibodeaux

Thibodeaux spent 15 years on death row and was released in 2012, after the prosecutor found Thibodeaux 's confession unreliable. Thibodeaux confessed to the rape and murder of his 14 years old cousin, Chrystal Champagne.

Thibodeaux has been trying to get compensated for his 15 years on death row. So far, that has not been resolved. Thibodeaux has been unable to establish proof of his actual innocence for nearly 22 years, since the 1996 rape/murder. Proof of actual innocence is the standard for getting compensated, as well detailed, here (3). Nothing has progressed since

2014.

So, we'll just have to wait and see if his proof of actual innocence is presented and established, which has not occurred, for 22 years.

False claims of "exonerated" and "innocent" are common (8) and, easily, rebutted (8).

My condolences for the loved ones of Crystal Champagne.

The following rebuts other issues brought up within "The Penalty" and/or other claims made by those associated with "The Penalty":

4) “One For Ten,” is the previous anti death penalty "documentary" by this same crew, whereby the title represents that for every 10 executions, there is 1 death row exoneration.

This reflects the, alleged, near 10 to 1 ratio of the, now, about 1470 executions and 161 death row "exonerations".

Complete, utter nonsense, with the constant anti death penalty deception being this:

For over 20 years, the anti death penalty folks have redefined both "innocent" and "exonerated", as if they had redefined lie as truth (8), and then stuffed a bunch of cases into those fraudulent definitions which, now, number 161, of which 70-83% are unfounded claims, as detailed (8). When I was, still, anti death penalty, it took less than 5 minutes, of fact checking, to discover those fraudulent definitions.

Possibly 37, or 0.4%, of the 8200 sentenced to death since 1976, may have proof of actual innocence. All have been released, but one, who died on death row. (8), as he would have, serving life.

The correct math is that there might be some 37 death row inmates with provable, actual innocence, out of about 8200 of those sentenced to death, or about 1 for 220.

5) Death penalty problems

The problems that "The Penalty" and crew attribute to the death penalty are either false (9) or are not the fault of the death penalty, but those who manage it, which includes Governors, Attorney Generals, legislators and those who are the case managers – the judges (10).

For example, Virginia has executed 112 murderers, since 1976, within 7 years of full appeals (11). Obviously, if Virginia can do it, all states can, if, responsibly, managed. (10,11 ).

Responsible management overcomes one of Darlene Farah's objections.

6) The Death Penalty Doesn't Provide Closure

Of course, execution is closure. It is closure of the legal process, found as just, by the overwhelming percentage of murder victim survivors (5) and it prevents that murderer from ever haring anyone again – a very big deal for many of those survivors (6, 7).

Of course, execution cannot bring closure to the emotional and psychological challenges of those who have lost loved ones to murder. No sanction does that nor are they expected to.

7) Clemency for Raymond Tibbetts (12)

There is no case for the Governor granting clemency.

Tibbetts was convicted of the aggravated murders of Judith Sue Crawford, Tibbets' wife, and Fred Hicks. Hicks was sixty-seven years old and suffered from emphysema. Crawford was his live-in caretaker.

Tibbetts, who had married Crawford just over a month earlier, also lived in the house.

On November 6, 1997, Hicks’s sister, Joan Hicks Landwehr, arrived at Hicks’s home in Cincinnati to meet him for lunch. After getting no answer at the door and seeing Hicks’s car missing from its usual parking space, Landwehr entered the home with her spare key.

Landwehr went to a second-floor living room and found Hicks’s dead body slumped in a chair. Landwehr immediately called 911. Landwehr noticed that her brother’s chest and stomach were bloody and that his right pants pocket, where Hicks usually kept his money, was turned inside out.

When Cincinnati police officers responded a short time later, they found Hicks with a tube still connecting his nose to a nearby oxygen tank. Two knives protruded from Hicks’s chest, a third knife protruded from his back, and the broken blade of a fourth knife was also in his back. Officers found additional knives and a knife sheath near Hicks. A butcher block used to store knives lay behind Hicks’s chair. Deputy coroner Daniel Schultz later determined that Hicks died as a result of multiple stab wounds to his chest that punctured Hicks’s heart, lungs, and aorta. Hicks did not have any defensive wounds.

Officers found Crawford lying dead on the floor of a third-floor room, covered with a sheet.

Crawford had been brutally beaten; her head was cracked open and lay in a pool of blood.

Pieces of Crawford’s brain were lying on the floor next to her head. Crawford had also been stabbed several times, with one knife still stuck in her neck. Crawford also had a broken left arm, which Dr. Schultz characterized as a probable result of her attempt to ward off blows.

Police found a bloodstained baseball bat and several knives near Crawford’s body. Dr. Schultz concluded that Crawford died of multiple skull fractures and that at least nine of her stab wounds were inflicted after her death. In all, Crawford had been struck at least four times in the head with blunt-force blows and sustained stab wounds to her back, lungs, chest, arm, shoulder, and neck.

Saturday, December 09, 2017

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital
Punishment, 2017, Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, $24.95). Visit ignatius.com or call 1-800-651-1531.Edward Feser's Blog, here:http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/Reviews and defense1) Edward Peters, Professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major
Seminary, Canon Law,May 23, 2017,https://www.facebook.com/canonlawinfo/posts/812849032206618"Feser and Bessette’s defense of capital punishment is a triumph of
truth over platitude, of fact over fiction, of argument over emotion. In
response to recent condemnations of the death penalty issued by various
ecclesiastics, Feser and Bessette calmly and methodically set forth the
philosophical, Scriptural, doctrinal, and sociological arguments grounding
the Catholic Church’s hitherto unquestioned – and ultimately unquestionable –
support for the death penalty when it is justly administered."" . . . all contributions to the capital punishment debate,
especially as conducted by and among Catholics, must incorporate the work of
Feser and Bessette or risk irrelevance.""Defenders of capital punishment will find in these pages
persuasive arguments upholding the proper exercise of this momentous state power
and opponents of the death penalty will see their challenges accurately depicted
and soberly answered.""This exactly is what Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette provide in
their recent book, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, the most comprehensive
case ever assembled. Yes, one can avoid becoming persuaded by not looking
into that telescope. But if you do, you may see so clearly the unchanging
nature of the question that you will quip, Eppur non si muove,“Nevertheless
it does not move.”2) Reviews: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of
Capital Punishment, Janet Smith, moral theologian, Claremont Review of Books,
Fall 2017" . . . the arguments are so strong, I timidly suggest, that
perhaps the authors should have allowed readers to “draw their own
conclusions” more often. But let me say, the book simply flattens its
opponents.""(Bessette) uses this data to refute claims made by the (United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops) that capital punishment has no
deterrent power, that innocent persons are regularly executed, that the
application of the death penalty has been unfairly applied to minorities and
the poor.""Feser systematically refutes the arguments of those who think the Church now teaches that capital punishment is intrinsically unjust. He helps readers to see how weak our attachment to justice has become and how little we allow tight reasoning about justice to govern our thinking…" 3) Yes, traditional Church teaching on capital punishment is
definitive, Dr. Edward Feser, The Catholic World Report, 11/21/2017, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/21/yes-traditional-church-teachingoncapital-punishment-is-definitive/ "Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the popes
for 2000 years have taught that capital punishment can be legitimate in
principle . . . this teaching is irreformable." "Given the “hermeneutic of
continuity” emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI – and given especially the
teaching of the First Vatican Council that popes have no authority to
introduce new doctrines . . . "4) Capital Punishment: Eppur non si muove, Michael Pakaluk, The
Catholic Thing, NOVEMBER 4, 2017,https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/11/04/capital-punishment-eppur-non-si-muove/“If bloodless means suffice, they must be used instead.” But what
if bloodless means do not suffice? Then bloody means must be used. The man
already in solitary confinement who finds his chance to murder the visiting
physician or pastor. The revolutionary who remains a rallying point. Hans
Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Hermann Goering,
Arthur Seyss-Inquart – you think bloodless means suffice to uphold justice?
You are entitled to that minority opinion, but you cannot say that it is
against reason, against conscience, to hold otherwise.""But in our day, when even the heavens apparently do move, we need
a different sort of telescope for seeing the changelessness of the other –
one that has the clear lens of reason, and the long extension of history, and
which is situated in a calm and still observatory."5) Reply to Brugger and TollefsenPart 1Traditional Catholic Doctrine on Capital Punishment is
Irreversible: A Reply to E. Christian Brugger, by Edward Feser, The Public
Discourse, November 19th, 2017,http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20497/"The Catholic Church has always taught that capital punishment can
be legitimate under certain circumstances. Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors
of the Church, and every pope who has commented on the topic up to Benedict
XVI have all clearly and repeatedly affirmed this teaching."Part 2St. John Paul II Did Not Change Catholic Teaching on Capital
Punishment: A Reply to E.Christian Brugger by Edward Feser, The Public
Discourse, November 20th, 2017,http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20501/"To change (the Church's 2000 year old teachings) would be to
contradict the clear and consistent teaching of scripture, the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church, and the popes, and no pope has the authority to do
that."Part 3Capital Punishment, Catholicism, and Natural Law: A Reply to
Christopher Tollefsen, by Edward Feser, 11/21/2017, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20504/" . . . the reason a person can be deprived even of the highest
good, God, is that a person can do something to deserve such a loss. The same
thing is true of life. A person has a right not to be killed unless—by virtue
of having committed a sufficiently heinous crime—he has, as Pope Pius XII put
it, “deprived himself of the right to live.” Tollefsen’s argument
against capital punishment simply ignores the fact that the right to the
enjoyment of a good any good—depends on whether or not one is guilty or
innocent."6) Review: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of
Capital Punishment, Daniel Lendman, Reading Religion, a publication of the
American Academy of Religion, June 29, 2017,http://readingreligion.org/books/man-shall-his-blood-be-shed"Feser and Bessette… insist that the legitimacy of capital
punishment is the ancient and long standing teaching of the Catholic Church.
[They] go even farther, laying out a compelling case that denying that
capital punishment can be legitimate in principle is proximate
to heresy…""While the context of this argument is decidedly and purposefully
Catholic, readers of different religions and belief systems can still find
forceful natural law arguments supporting capital punishment in this book.
The authors also offer arguments claiming the prudence of using capital
punishment in the United States, . . . "7) "Can the Church ever bless the death penalty?", by Dan Hitchens,
deputy editor of the Catholic Herald, 25 May 2017,http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/may-26th-2017/can-the-church-ever-bless-thedeath-penalty/"As Feser remarks . . . some theologians “have turned the notion
of development into a euphemism or lawyer’s trick whereby outright reversals
of past teaching are magically made orthodox by slapping the label
‘development’ on them. You might as well say that denying Christ’s divinity or
the doctrine of original sin can be reconciled with past teaching as long as
we call them ‘developments’ and get enough people to go along with this
sleight of hand.”“Punishment,” Feser and Bessette write, “is a matter of restoring
the natural connection between pain and acting contrary to nature’s
ends.”"They quote Aquinas as saying that since an offender “has been too
indulgent to his will”, he should suffer “either willingly or unwillingly,
something contrary to what he would wish”,for the sake of the “restoration
of the equality of justice”. The same idea is affirmed by the 1992 Catechism
of the Catholic Church: “Punishment has the primary aimof redressing the
disorder introduced by the offence.' "8) Capital Punishment Revisited, By CHRISTOPHER MANION, The
Wanderer, 12/9/2017,http://thewandererpress.comFrom the book: “ . . . no Catholic may condemn capital punishment
as intrinsically unjust, though a Catholic may still oppose the use of the
death penalty on prudential grounds. But we will also show that there are no
good prudential grounds for opposing it and that there are powerful
prudential grounds not only for maintaining it but for applying it with
some regularity."" . . a highly recommended book that sheds the patient, clear
light of reason on the issue of capital punishment . . . beautifully
researched and clearly written work will now become the standard Catholic
work on capital punishment.""Every U.S. bishop should read it." " . . . will it convince even
one bishop? That prospect is a false hope and a distraction. In this and all
efforts, the writer must have the goal not of persuading the hierarchy but of
telling the truth, and letting the truth tell its own story. And the story
told by this brilliant work is indeed worth telling."" . . . leaders and bureaucrats at the USCCB routinely violate that
magisterial teaching, and pretend that theirs is the only permissible
“Catholic” position when they choose a particular agenda item to champion." "
. . . this bad habit has put the faithful in a position of delicacy, patiently
and charitably reminding the bishops that they are trespassing in the realm
that is the property of the laity."" . . . today it falls to the laity to explain the principles
underlying the issues of crime and punishment, laying out the arguments to
explain the principles in the light of the rich tradition of Catholic
thought." " . . . the laity has a fundamental right to the truth,
including when it comes to capital punishment . . . And the truth is exactly
what Feser and Bessette offer in their impressive study. . . . . they take
great care in presenting a clear and rational discussion to shed the patient,
clear light of reason on the issue . . . from the point of view of the
Natural Law, Church teaching, and theological and philosophical anthropology."“Unfortunately, churchmen have in recent years not been equally
respectful of the authority and duty of public officials to exercise their
prudential judgment in applying Catholic social teaching when it comes to the
death penalty.”F&B “many Catholics today glibly assert that capital
punishment is incompatible with promoting a ‘culture of life’….It is
simpleminded sloganeering, not serious thinking.”"With this particular point the authors put their finger on a
regrettable tendency that has become a bad habit of hierarchs when defending
their opinionated agendas. The pro-life movement — led since its inception by
the laity, not the hierarchy — has championed the powerful symbol of
“pro-life” as an irrefutable tribute to the reality of the unborn
child’s humanity. So it is distressing, but not surprising, that many
peddlers of political palaver have tried to hijack the “pro-life” label and
apply it to their personal political agenda, on particulars ranging from
foreign aid and tax policy to immigration and “global warming.”"That rhetorical dodge . . . smacks too much of an acquiescence to
what Pope Benedict called the “Dictatorship of Relativism.” It serves only to
dilute the Church’s adamant defense of life, as well as to delude the public
regarding the honest use of words."9) Hot Air vs. Capital Punishment: A Reply to Paul Griffiths and
David Bentley Hart, Dr.Edward Feser, The Catholic World Report, November
28,2017, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/28/hot-air-versus-capital-punishmenta-reply-to-paul-griffiths-and-david-bentley-hart/"Griffiths’ review in First Things . . . is rich in condescension,
high in dudgeon, and largely devoid of substantive engagement with the book’s
arguments.""Hart’s review in Commonweal is so rhetorically over-the-top and
dishonest that the effect is more comical than offensive"

Friday, December 01, 2017

"(Pringle) , along with two other men, was convicted of the murder of two
gardaí in 1980. Detective John Morley and Garda Henry Byrne had five young
children between them when they were shot dead during a robbery in Co Roscommon.
The killers were acting under a republican flag of convenience.

Two of them, Colm O’Shea and Pat McCann, were captured in the vicinity. The
third man managed to flee the scene, but gardaí believed him to be Pringle. He
was arrested in Galway 12 days later after a manhunt. He had shaved off his
beard and dyed his hair. He denied any involvement and later claimed he had been
on a drunken bender since the day before the robbery." (3)

"The evidence against him was largely circumstantial, including sightings
of him in the Roscommon area in the immediate aftermath of the robbery and
evidence that he’d been in the company of the other men in the days prior to the
robbery, despite claiming he hadn’t seen them in months. There was forensic
evidence involving hair and paint samples and gun residue. This was in the days
before the development of DNA evidence. The clinching aspect to his conviction
was a partial admission while in custody." (3)

"In 1995, Pringle succeeded in an appeal against his conviction. He had
discovered evidence about a blood sample of his that had not been examined in
his trial. The appeal judges decided that a dispute over the sample between two
gardaí may have given rise to a credibility issue of Garda evidence. As such,
the conviction was deemed unsafe and it was up to the State to try Pringle
again.

Pringle attempted to portray this development as a miscarriage of justice.
In a memoir entitled Surviving Ireland’s Death Row, he claimed evidence was
“concocted” by retired detective superintendent Tom Connolly. In fact, the
appeal judges made a point of noting they were not suggesting any officers had
acted anyway dishonestly." (3)

"(The book, published three years ago, prompted Connolly to write his own
memoir which included a more detailed account of the case, backed up by
records.) The retrial never went ahead because the senior officer who had
sanctioned an extension to Pringle’s time in custody 15 years earlier had since
died. That was a lucky break for the recently-released Pringle.

"A week after his release, his solicitor wrote to the State demanding
£50,000 as an interim payment for wrongful imprisonment. The demand was given
short shrift. Since then, Pringle has not initiated any action that could result
in obtaining a certificate of miscarriage and a huge compensation payout. Over
the last 20 years he has frequently stated that he is still “trying” to get his
case into the High Court, but it’s unclear who on earth might be stopping him." (3)

Sonny Jacobs was on death row for less than 4 years, not
17. She has not been exonerated. She pled guilty to second degree murder and
those confessions and legal status remain, as they should. Case detailed below,
at 1 & 2.

Pringle was sentenced to death in 1980, spent 6 months
on death row and the last execution in Ireland was Michael Manning, in 1954,
Pringle was probably laughing at the reporter. See, also 3Fact checking matters.

======

Also see the absurd:

Two Wrongful Convictions. One Happy Marriage.“It felt like the universe put us together.”By MAURICE CHAMMAH, The Marshall Project,

"Your Holiness (Pope Francis), a chronic
confusion seems to mark your pontificate." "The main source of concern is the
manner of your teaching." " . . . your guidance at times seems intentionally
ambiguous . . . "." " To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity
inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth." (1)

"The
Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel
error, not to foster it." (1)

" . . . (Pope Francis) seems to regard every aspect of the Church’s tradition as a plastic instrument to be stiffened here or relaxed there in accord with ever-changing pastoral judgments." (2).

" . . . it’s reasonable to think the pontificate (of Pope Francis) will seek to muddy the Church’s teaching . . .". (2) "This papacy’s goal of aligning the Catholic Church with the bourgeois consensus has other dimensions that show how unprincipled this process will be." (2)

" . . . Francis also will denounce where denunciations are wanted. Recently, he declared capital punishment always and everywhere forbidden. " While . . . "this pronouncement is inconsistent with the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition of moral teaching on the matter, . . . that’s beside the point. The notion of Pope Francis defining any act as intrinsically evil is laughable on its face, given how often he attacks the “doctors of the law” who speak about objective moral norms. And didn’t Fr. Antonio Spadaro very clearly tell us that the time has passed when we can speak of “a norm that stands above all”? (2)

"Moreover, only where there is truth can there be
authentic love, for truth is the light that sets women and men free from the
blindness of sin, a darkness that kills the life of the soul. Yet you seem to
censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in
accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless
rigorism." (1)

" . . . (Pope Francis) has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by
other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical
positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments,
and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church."
"(Pope Francis) has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive
teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the
assent of faith. The Church teaches no pope can claim that God has revealed some
new truth to him, which it would be obligatory for Catholics to believe." "The
signatories . . . respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he
has directly or indirectly upheld." (3).

"This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry.
Some of your advisors regrettably seem to engage in similar actions. Such
behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological
scrutiny, and so must be sustained by "ad hominem" arguments." (2)

"The details don’t matter. Pope Francis and his closest associates have no interest in the sacramental coherence of their positions on matters such as divorce and remarriage, nor do they care one whit about defending the logic of the arguments they put forward." (2).

" . . . too often your manner seems to demean the
importance of Church doctrine. Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and
bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life. Your critics have
been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology. But it is
precisely Christian doctrine – including the fine distinctions made with regard
to central beliefs like the Trinitarian nature of God; the nature and purpose of
the Church; the Incarnation; the Redemption; and the sacraments – that frees
people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and
teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel." (1)

"Those who devalue the doctrines of
the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth. What they then
possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world
of sin and death." (1)

"Christianity orients us upward and toward the divine. Bourgeois religion is horizontal. It takes its cues from the consensus of the moment, the opinions ofthe good and responsible people.This reduces Christianity to a political religion organized to buttress the status quo. The Francis papacy largely follows this pattern, making it quite predictable." (2)

" . . . faithful Catholics can only be
disconcerted by your (Pope Francis') choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to
those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend
them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only
your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also
seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice. This weakens
the zeal of the many women and men who have championed authentic Catholic
teaching over long periods of time, often at the risk of their own reputations
and well-being. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the "sensus
fidelium," are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd." (1)

" . . . you are commissioned by the Lord himself
to promote and strengthen (Church) unity. . . . your actions and words too
often seem intent on doing the opposite" . Encouraging a form of "synodality"
that allows and promotes various doctrinal and moral options within the Church
can only lead to more theological and pastoral confusion. Such synodality is
unwise and, in practice, works against collegial unity among
bishops." (1)

" . . . many have learned from your pontificate
is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it. Many bishops are
silent because they desire to be loyal to you, and so they do not express – at
least publicly; privately is another matter – the concerns that your pontificate
raises. Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or
worse." (1)

" . . . your pontificate has given those who hold
harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into
the light and expose their previously hidden darkness. In recognizing this
darkness, the Church will humbly need to renew herself, and so continue to grow
in holiness." (1)

"May the Holy Spirit lead you to the light of
truth and the life of love so that you can dispel the darkness that now hides
the beauty of Jesus’ Church." (1)

More here:

The Pope’s Pedophile?, Andrew Sullivan, New York Magazine, June 30, 2017,

Weinandy is among the most eminent theologians, lives in Washington at the College of the Capuchins, the Franciscan order to which he belongs, is a member of theinternational theological commission, the commission that Paul VI set up alongside the congregation for the doctrine of the faith so that it could avail itself of the cream of the crop among the world’s theologians. He has been a member of this commission since 2014, having been appointed to it by Pope Francis.